Watada Gets Another Chance

Round one ends in mistrial. You've probably heard- Watada's defense hasn't been allowed to present a large portion of what they need to prove that he was acting as an honorable soldier, and defending his country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has the balls to put his whole life on the line here, and we should respect his sacrifice. It's a valuable as those being made in Iraq.

FORT LEWIS -- The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday.

The case's judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war -- opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the judge didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

Watada, a Stryker Brigade soldier, is the first commissioned officer to refuse to be deployed to Iraq. Watada's unit left this sprawling base for Iraq in June, but Watada remained behind. He said he believes the war is illegal and that his duty is to not abide by illegal orders.

But Head tried to keep the court-martial from becoming a tribunal on the war and its legality and has ruled that Watada's attorney cannot present witnesses to question the war's legality. Outside the base, that has been the issue as peace activists from across the country have rallied to Watada's side.

Watada is charged with missing movement to Iraq and with two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. Those last two charges result from statements Watada made against the war in a video tape released to reporters after he made his refusal to go to Iraq public and to a Veterans for Peace convention at the University of Washington.

He had been charged with two other counts of conduct unbecoming for interviews he gave. Prosecutors dropped those charged in return for Watada's signing a stipulation that he had given the interviews. He also acknowledged in the stipulation that he didn't go with his unit to Iraq, though he didn't admit his guilt to the missing movement charge.

With the jury of officers out of the courtroom Wednesday morning, Head wanted to question Watada about the stipulation to make sure that it was accurate and to protect the lieutenant against any mistakes in it.

But Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, objected to the questioning. He said the stipulation should include Watada's reasons for not going to Iraq: His views that the war is illegal.

"It has always been his position that not only would he miss movement but he would not participate in a war he considered illegal" and not participate in war crimes, Seitz said.
"His specific intent was of a different character all together" than simply missing his unit's deployment to Iraq, Seitz said.

To prove a charge of missing movement, the prosecutors need to show that Watada did not report when he had a duty to do so. The disagreement that prompted the mistrial was about whether Watada admitted missing troop movement and having a duty to report, or only missing troop movement.

"I see there is an inconsistency in the stipulation of fact," the judge said Wednesday. "I don't know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now."

Because much of the Army's evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.

It's not a victory, but I hope something significant can develop out of this. I salute Lt. Watada and thank him for his bravery.

Comments

Watada

doesn't this
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...
say Watada is free due to double-jeopardy protection in the Constitution?

because the prosecution presented its case, THEN the mistrial was declared, WHEN the judge saw the govrnmt was going to lose?

or did i miss something?

david goldstein helps too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gold...

so, watada is off?
right?
maybe?

yellowdog jim, i don't think he's off scott free

or his lawyers would have been ok with this decision. instead, he opposed it. my understanding of mistrial is that it leaves the door open for prosecution, under circumstances modified by whatever caused the mistrial the first time.

but we'll have to wait and see. i hope you're right and i'm wrong, and watada walks free.

Watada's intentions?

I admit I haven't been following this case closely, but the way I read the story above is that merely "walking free" is not Watada's goal here.

Dedicated civil-disobedience people could "walk free" if they just paid the trespassing (or whatever) fine, but if that was their goal they would have just moved off the sidewalk or to the back of the bus or left their blood in their veins in the first place and avoided arrest. They instead want a trial, want attention paid to the injustice being protested, and upon losing they want to occupy the system by taking up court and jail time that would otherwise go elsewhere.

I get the impression that this was why his lawyer objected to the mistrial. Because the trial is what they want. If in fact the government lawyer dodged out to avoid letting the legality-of-this-war case even be aired and argued, this would be good news indeed.

okay ...

CD - i'm with you: it's not clear & we shall see.
xan - i agree that it seems Lt. Watada still wants to serve in the military, but not participate in an illegal war, Therefore the military's war in iraq is cooked, done for, over, if Watada were to win his case.
http://www.alternet.org/story/47808

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. He wrote:

No political or economic situation can justify the crime of aggression. If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

Lt. Ehren Watada was correct when he said the war is illegal and he would be party to war crimes if he deployed to Iraq. The orders to deploy were unlawful and Lt. Watada had a duty to disobey them. Although he faces the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, the judge's grant of a mistrial precludes retrial on the same criminal charges.

i appreciate all of y'all at here CorrenteWire.
thanks.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Feed the hamsters...

... that work the wheels that keep the Mighty Corrente servers turning. Help us cover monthly hamster kibble anxiety:

...or provide temporary relief:

Thank you!

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.